TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee never received any communication from the Department, particularly regarding the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). The learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that only on receipt of the assessment order for the A.Y 2023-24 dated 24/12/2024, the consequential appeal was filed on 16/01/2025, the assessee was appraised of the order of the learned CIT (A) for the A.Y under consideration. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate but due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Immediately after discovering the impugned order on the I.T Portal, the assessee promptly took steps to file the present appeal. Thus, he has pleaded that the delay of 506 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be admitted for deciding on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings for the A.Y 2023-24 but did not file the appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) for the A.Y 2021-22. Thus, he has contended that the assessee has failed to expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal according to law. 6. The solitary issue arises in the appeal of the assessee is whether the learned CIT (A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the CPC while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act denying exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act, due to delay in filing the audit report in Form-10B. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the report in Form- 10B was filed on 15/03/2022 as placed at page No.91 to 94 of the paper book. He has also referred to the CBDT Circular No.1 of 2022 and submitted that due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the CBDT extended the date of filing the audit report up to 15/03/2022. Therefore, the report was filed within the due date as extended by the CBDT vide circular No.1 dated 11/01/2022. The learned Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that it was a period of Covid-19 Pandemic and therefore, the audit report in Form 10B was filed within the period of limitation for filing the return of income as extended by the CBDT. He has also relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted the petitioner in filing Form 10B within the stipulated period of time. 11. The judgment of this High Court in the case of M/s. Shilparam (supra) decided on 24.11.2023 dealing with the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the act in para Nos.17 to 22 held as under: "17. Now if we look into the statutory provisions, what is reflected is that the provisions under Section 119(2)(b) has been enacted with a specific purpose empowering the authorities concerned to condone the delay on the part of the assessee in furnishing or in submitting of the returns or an appropriate application within a reasonable period of time. The said provision of law does not provide for any specific period of time within which the application for condonation of delay needs to be filed. The said provision has also been enacted to ensure that genuine hardship which an assessee may face can be avoided by condoning the delay if any that has occurred and an appropriate application seeking for condonation of delay is filed. 18. The High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. Income Tax Officer. (Exemption) [2021] 124 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat) dealing with similar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouse in order and has furnished the report of the auditor for supporting the return, he can be said to have satisfied the requirement of section 80J(6A) of the Act. 20. A similar view is available from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SHAHZEDANAND CHARITY TRUST 228 ITR 292(P&H), where again the Division bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dealing with similar facts and circumstances of the case referring to the circular of the Income Tax Department itself held as under: "The provisions of section 80J(6A) and section 12A of the Act are pari material. The ratio of the law laid down in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81111 (P&H) would have been applicable to the facts of the present case as well had the Central Board of Direct Taxes not issued the circular dated February 9, 1978, reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. As per the circular it is not mandatory under Section 12A(b) to file the audit report along with the return of income. Normally, a charitable or religious trust or institution is expected to file the auditor's report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act would also get automatically quashed and the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay stands allowed. Wherefore the respondent No. 3 would be required to pass an appropriate consequential order in accordance with law." 12. It is informed that there is no further challenge to the department. 13. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the view of this very High Court in the case of M/s. Shilparam (supra) under similar factual backdrop coupled with the fact that the impugned order under Ex.P1 does not discuss in any manner, the explanation so provided by the petitioner which prevented them for filing Form 10B within the stipulated time. Further, the impugned order, except for the references for judicial precedents is totally silent as to whether the petitioner did submit Form 10B and whether they did give letter dated 18.12.2023 seeking for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the act in submitting Form 10B. 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order, as in the case of M/s. Shilparam (supra) decided by the Division B....